On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 11:47:24AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I think we need a symlink such as the one above, in cases where the upstream
> changelog has a different name to the one we want.
>
> This also makes more sense than merely renaming the
On Sun, Apr 12, 1998 at 02:28:08AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> Source
> This specifies who is providing this archive. In the case of
> Debian the string will read 'Debian'. Other providers may use
> their own string
Please name this "Origin", as it contain
On Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 11:42:45PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Therefore I think that it is better to leave them mode 444 so a user
> > (educated by Slackware) will find little more difficult to modify them
> > (mode 444 should make him thin
On Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 11:26:05PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> 2. AFAIK all the extensions have to be _hardcoded_ into the man-db source
> code. Thus, it's evil if maintainers `invent' new extensions.
>
It's not *evil*, but simply your new extension will not be recognized as
a section if
I just started to look at all the things that lintian reported about my
packages (thanx!) and I noticed:
W: groff: non-standard-file-perm usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults/GXditview 0444
I noticed than that quite _all_ the files in that dir (on my hamm
system) are mode 444 (instead of 644) with few
On Thu, Feb 05, 1998 at 12:52:25AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 1998 at 12:20:28AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > @packages.debian.org address?
>
> What do you mean exactly? This is "only" a mapping of the .dsc files.
>
Humm, I see ... it expands to joey-packages-- ..
On Wed, Feb 04, 1998 at 10:20:22AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with most of what Christian said. As a corollary, I
> would like to add to policy that @debian.org be a working
> email address.
>
meetoo
And more, can we put in the design also the
@packages.debian.org
On Mon, Feb 02, 1998 at 01:59:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Furthermore, noone has yet to my knowledge come up with a good
> argument as to why we should distribute source code in .deb files,
Ahem, I date to say I did.
Nothing related to kernel or source compiling, it's source code added in
On Mon, Feb 02, 1998 at 06:34:57PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > I would prefer `close', `closes' OR `closed' (but obviously only one
>
> Anyways, we had this discussion a few times already. As I remember from
> last time, you (Ian) were the only o
On Sat, Jan 31, 1998 at 12:09:10AM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On 30 Jan 1998, James Troup wrote:
>
> > Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > As long as the binary packages `Depend:' (or `Recommend:') the
> > > package containing /usr/doc/source-package and they install a
On Wed, Jan 28, 1998 at 02:11:10PM +, Luis Francisco Gonzalez wrote:
>
> could someone explain to me again why only source updates can close bug
> reports? Does this mean that bugs closed with non-source uploads have to
> closed "by hand" or that they can't be closed at all?
Keep in mind that
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 08:36:39PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
>
> If I get no objections, e2fsprogs_1.10-11 will be shipped with
> comerr{2g,g-dev}_2.0-1.10-11.
It was my convincement that policy said that library's binary packages
should have the soname version _in_ the name (at the end of the na
On 15 Jan, Guy Maor wrote:
> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Fixes: 98765 98766 9
>
> So dinstall will be scanning for this field, and not looking in the
> changelog? In other words, this will only work for people that have
> an updated dpkg-genchanges?
I'd rather
On 16 Jan, joost witteveen wrote:
>
> Most security people seem to agree that security-wise it's
> better to have shared binaries.
>
I'm not a security expert, so I can take this for granted.
>> If the libs are compiled with -DDEBUG
>
> They aren't.
Yours maybe. Mine are.
Some sources embeds
On 15 Jan, joost witteveen wrote:
>
> OK, we seem to agree here. It seems you and me don't object too much
In fact we agree a lot (as I have taken most from examining your
packages :-); we disagree on the point of the ld.so.conf, and I'm sure
I will convince you later :-)
> -dev: Only headers
On 15 Jan, joost witteveen wrote:>
>> People that wants to create a statically linked program need an archive
>> library (humm, seems an assertion that needs to be re-checked; it's
>> historically true, but ... who knows? I'll do some tests trying to
>> build static executables from shared libs).
On 14 Jan, joost witteveen wrote:
>>
>> Debian Policy Weekly issue #5 :
>>
>>runtime pkg:shared lib stripped with --strip-unneeded
>>develop pkg:static lib stripped with --strip-debug
>>debug pkg: static lib unstripped
>
> I may be _way_ wrong here, but it se
[REPOST: I've already posted this three days ago, but I haven't seen it
on the list, nor I've seen any reply, so I suppose it's vanished
somewhere. I apologize to those who get it twice]
On 8 Jan, Guy Maor wrote:
> Fabrizio Polacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I recently managed to add some
18 matches
Mail list logo
